Shrinkage — the series · Textile Structure

The same thread, on the loom and off it. One warp end in section over eight picks, drawn twice at the same scale. The thread is the same length in both panels; in the lower one more of that length is in the bends, so the cloth it spans is shorter. Nothing has been lost — the length has moved into the crimp. The thread's thickness and the height of its bends are drawn larger than scale so the interlacing is legible; the two panels' spacings are not.

Relaxation is the crimp coming back

A cloth that shrinks in the wash has not lost any thread. The thread is exactly as long as it was; more of its length is now spent going up and down rather than along, and the difference is the shrinkage, computable to the last figure from the woven geometry alone.

part 1 · finishing

How much a cloth can give back. Relaxation shrinkage against how much of the warp crimp the loom took out, with the area shrinkage above it and the ceiling drawn across. The ceiling is the crimp itself, read as c/(1+c): it is all the length there is to give, and no tension reaches past it.

Why the warp shrinks more

A woven cloth almost always loses more length than width, and the reason is not in the cloth. It is in the machine — the warp is held under tension for the whole of weaving and the weft is held for a fraction of a second — so the two systems arrive at the finishing works with different amounts of crimp missing.

part 2 · finishing

A cloth cannot shrink past its own crimp

However hard a loom held the warp, there is a limit to what relaxation can take back, and it is not a fitted constant or a measured one. It is the crimp itself, read as c over one plus c, and it is the only result in this field with nothing empirical in it at all.

part 3 · finishing

What a pre-shrunk label promises. Three lengths of the same cloth: as woven, as it leaves the compressive-shrinkage machine, and where it will finally settle. The residual shrinkage quoted on a label is measured against the second of these and the total against the first, so the two numbers are not the same quantity and cannot be subtracted.

Pre-shrinking is a subtraction done in advance

A compressive-shrinkage machine takes four per cent out of a cloth before anybody buys it, and the label then quotes what is left. The two numbers are fractions of different lengths, so they cannot be subtracted — and the difference between doing that correctly and incorrectly is most of the number.

part 4 · finishing

Shrinkage from wetting, cloth by cloth. The change in each cloth's relaxed construction when its threads swell by 20% across and 1.2% along. Both states are least-energy states of their own constant-thread-length locus, which is the only comparison the locus admits: its minimum is a state at its own sett, so it may be compared with another minimum and not with a quoted construction. Positive is smaller. Every cloth that has a wet state closes up except the cheesecloth, which opens by half a per cent because the fibre's extra hundredth of length outruns the extra crimp a thicker partner costs. What the bars cannot show is the three cloths that are missing, which have no wet state at all.

Two shrinkages, one tape measure

A cloth that comes out of a wash smaller has done two different things and the tape cannot tell them apart. One is geometric, recoverable and finished in minutes; the other is frictional, permanent and needs agitation. This collection can now compute both, and they have different signatures.

part 5 · finishing

Wash-by-wash shrinkage, reported and modelled. The shrinkage an unfinished cotton cloth shows in each of five laundering cycles, beside what a model with no rate in it predicts. The model says a wash lets every crossing whose frictional barrier is below the cloth's current excess slip to the edge of its own band, and that is a distribution rather than a rate. Two numbers are fitted — the excess the cloth came off the loom with, 7.13%, and the spread of the barriers, 37.2× — against the first two washes. Washes three, four and five are predictions with nothing left to adjust and come out at 0.506%, 0.284%, 0.179% against reported 0.50%, 0.30%, 0.20%. What the bars cannot show is the finding underneath: the reported yarn-on-yarn friction range gives a spread of only 1.34×, which would have the tail over by the third wash.

A cloth shrinks most the first time

A laundering test reports five numbers and they fall away like a geometric series. Nothing in a wash is slow — a cloth is agitated tens of thousands of times in half an hour — so a second wash that shrinks it again is direct evidence that its frictional barriers are spread, and the ratio between successive washes measures how far.

part 6 · finishing

What leaving the plane costs, which is less than nothing. Bending energy a stitch against how far the yarn climbs between one interlacing and the next, for a 20 tex cotton jersey at a 3.5 mm loop. The curve falls. A climb is not an extra bend added to a curve that was otherwise unchanged; it is part of the straight line the thread has to span, so a longer climb leaves less slack to be spent on curvature. At a jersey's own climb of one diameter the energy is 24395 nJ against 25060 for the planar model — 2.7% lower, where an earlier estimate on this site put the ride at three per cent of the loop's bending and had the sign the other way round. At a rib's climb of three or four diameters the fall is 33%.

A rib's relaxation is not its bending either

A jersey does not settle where its bending energy is least, and this collection has said so for several rungs. A rib does not either, and the model now says how far from least it would have to go: sixteen yarn diameters of bed gap before the yarn runs out, against the two or three a machine is set to.

part 7 · finishing